Impact of Supreme Court ruling on NC's public campaign finance system |
Tuesday, 28 June 2011 09:25 |
(RALEIGH) -- Could a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court impact state’s public campaign finance system? Depending on who you talk to, the answer ranges from: some revisions are needed to it is the end of publicly funded campaigns as we know it.
The court struck down a provision in Arizona’s campaign finance law that can give political candidates extra money if their opponent spends a certain amount privately raised money. North Carolina has a similar provision in its campaign finance system for judicial candidates. Supporters of the current system point out that the court ruling upheld the constitutionality of public financing in general. They also insist the program can still survive without the matching-funds mechanism. “It won’t make a big difference either which way on who decides to opt-in to public financing and who does not,” said Damon Circosta, executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education. “I’m still thinking we’re going to see robust participation from candidates from all across the political spectrum – incumbents, challengers, men, women.” However, others don’t see it the same way. Darren Bakst with the John Locke Foundation argues that without the matching-funds provision, the entire campaign finance system will fall apart. “The candidates won’t participate in these public financing systems unless there’s a way to try to equalize the amount of money spent – unless they know that the other opponent that’s raising money on their own is somehow punished,” said Bakst. The issue will very likely come up during the special redistricting session in July because bills involving election law changes can also be considered. An omnibus elections bill backed by Republicans would end public campaign financing for Council of State races. House Majority Leader Paul Stam, R-Wake, said state lawmakers should look at ending the judicial campaign finance program in order to comply with the court ruling. “It’s been silencing speech for about 6-7 years in blatantly unconstitutional way,” he said.
|
Last Updated on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 09:29 |